I'm gay for Garfield!

Quite the misleading title, eh? :Trollestia:

I just came back from the movie theatre, where i finally, and in full 3D glory, watched The Amazing Spider-Man. In every possible way, this movie has surpassed my expectations. Everything about this movie was a definite improvement over the other 3. In this blog update, i'll do my best to compare the two versions.

On a side note. i'm aware that most of my critique is at fault of the script writers, not the actors. But i'll be reffering to the actors to keep my points simple to read.

(May contain minor spoilers!)

The Main Character
In the first movies, Tobey Maguire portrayed Parker as an insecure geek, and doing only that, he failed to grasp what Peter Parker is all about. In no way did he depict Parker as an extroardinary science whiz, he just turned him into a high-school science geek. Worst thing is, after he became Spider-Man, he was still that same insecure geek for the duration of three full movies.

Andrew Garfield portrayed Peter Parker perfectly. A not too shabby scientific genius for someone his age, managing to analyze Oscorp's technology and improve it, using it for the traditional web-shooters which were not even in the first movie. Furthermore, he's scarred by his past and the parents he misses. He's reckless, and a bit of a rebel. He's not at all a nerd, but just a very shy person. He stands up for people who are like him, where Maguire's version would wet his pants at the sight of Flash Thompson.

The female co-player
Kirsten Dunst, playing the role of Mary-Jane Watson. She was nothing more than a plot device and a pathetic damsel in distress for Spider-Man to save at the end of the movie. In fact, that was the plot of each movie! "I got your girl, come and save her!"

Emma Stone, playing the role of Gwen Stacey, and Peter Parker's ORIGINAL girlfriend in the Spider-Man series. If there's one thing she's not, it's a damsel in distress. This woman actually risks her life several times during the movie to help Peter in his efforts. She's not a completely useless plot device. The villain doesn't even show any interest in her at all.

The main villains
Willem Dafoe, playing the Green Goblin. Dafoe is an excellent actor. He played his part pretty good, but that's about it. Green Goblin's motivation was revenge on the people who sacked him from Oscorp, and after he did that? "Kill Spider-Man!" Why? Good question! And then there's that awful suit they put him in.

Alfred Molina, playing Dr. Octopus. Of all the original movie villains, i liked him the most. But what ruined him was the mechanical arms. The excuse they gave him for being a bad guy was that the arms controlled him, because the incredibly fragile inhibitor chip on the most vulnerable spot on the back of his neck got busted during the entirely possible electrocution that followed his incredibely unstable experiment. And how could he not figure out that this energy source of his would pull all forms of metal into it? He created anti-magnetic arms specifically for the purpose of containing the energy, but his laboratory was covered in magnetic metal! Yeah, some genius he turned out to be!

James Franco, as the second Green Goblin. So... He knows his father was a maniac. He knows his best friend is trying to explain things. But the plot doesn't want him to listen to any of it, and they turn him into a homocidal maniac for what purpose exactly? So his butler can tell him at the end of the movie that Peter really didn't kill his father. His butler KNEW all along, and he waited until the end of the last movie to tell him that. Go figure.

Topher Grace, as Venom. Not at all close to what he should be. Grace was scrawny, short, and a bit of a sneaky little slimeball. Eddie Brock should have been bigger, more muscled, and an actual "in-your-face" ***hole to Peter Parker. Putting Topher in the Venom suit was a bad idea. The Venom himself was also far too small. Worst part is, his most awesome and recognizable feature, his face, was pulled back every time he talked, just to give the actor more screen time.

Thomas Church, as the Sandman. He looked the part, that's about it. The manner in which he gained his powers was a bigger plothole than the sandpit he fell into. So a bunch of scientists were running a night-time experiment on... sand? i guess. One of those scientists says there's something wrong. Another guy says it's probably a bird. Again, what's with scientists in these movies? All of them are dumber than a bag of hammers! Besides that, his sudden involvement in Uncle Ben's murder was obviously not planned from the start of the series. Though it's a nice touch, it was uncalled for. And at the end, he's just like. "Whatever, imma rob another bank, toodles!"

Rhys Ifans, as The Lizard. I have to admit, he was not the actor i had in mind to play the part of Dr. Connors, but he handled the relationship between himself and Peter really well. There wasn't an actual close bond between the two, but you felt like he wanted to know what Peter was all about when they met. There was a very good teacher/student relationship. His motivation combined with his growing insanity was also handled very well, whereas the Green Goblin was just "I'm crazy, deal with it!", Connors actually believed that what he was doing was a good thing. I actually felt sorry for him. I liked how a part of him still wanted to help Peter.


The Story
The story of the first three movies... Well, was there a story, really? No. Just basic good guy vs bad guy ft. love triangle drama. That's all i can think of to describe it. When you can sum up the plot of three movies in one sentence, that's just bad!

The story of the new movie was much deeper, and so much more realistic. Peter Parker's parents were never even mentioned in the first movie, as if they don't even exist. In the first movie, Peter designed his suit to enter a wrestling match. Okay, that's how it happened in the original comic book, but those were the sixties! In the new movie, Peter does nothing more than wear a red mask and some shades to go look for his uncle's killer.

Which brings me to the Uncle Ben death scenes. Both were handled pretty good, as they were both very similar. Though i have to give Andrew a few more cookies for better acting during the actual death scene. Tobey just walks away and spontaneously finds the guy who killed him. Andrew's version comes up with the whole Spider-Man idea just to find the guy, and he never even found him. He figures out what his uncle wanted for him and he went after other bad guys instead. I found the scene of Andrew trying to save the little kid from a burning car dangling from a bridge much more terrifying, intense, and realistically emotional than the scene with a bunch of kids in a railcar dangling from a bridge. Andrew actually showed that he cared for the kid, where Maguire just dumped the kids on a garbage boat and went on with his day.

Then there's the people on the bridge in the first movie, throwing all kinds of garbage at the Green Goblin. Yeah that helped!

In the new movie, the construction worker who was in debt to Spider-Man for saving his son from a burning car, ordered his collegues to man the cranes and position them to help Spider-Man get to Oscorp faster. Now THAT is helpful. As you see Spider-Man running towards those cranes with the pain of a bullet-wound in his leg, and the people of New York doing something to help him, that's just awesome.

The people on the bridge in the first movie, and the people on the monorail train in the second movie, they just put themselves in the path of the villain, and failed horribly at actually helping. Those were touching scenes, fair enough, but the message they sent was empty.

The Spidey Outfit
Not really a big issue, but i wanted to mention this little thing anyway. The first movie's outfit was very much designed to be similar to the original, except for the bright blue making way for the darker blue. The entire costume seemed to be made from light and easily ripped apart stretchy fabric. If i didn't know any better, i'd say it was taken straight from the cartoon.

The new movie's outfit looks way more real. The suit was still as flexible as it should be, but from what you could see, it actually looked strong, and actually provided at least some protection. The appearance was altered slightly as if saying "Hey, it's a movie. Why not add some more little details?" But it remained true to the original.

Summary
In short, the first three movies were bland, superficial, simple, and basic. Not to mention alot of cheesy, cliché, and horribly written lines.

The new movie had interesting characters, and actors to give those characters the credit they deserve. The entire movie as a whole was interesting to watch, and leaves the viewer waiting desperately for a sequel.

​

It took me 3 hours to write this, i hope to get some opinions. :derpe: